ART REVIEW AS REFLECTED BY THE ROMANIAN PRESS (1900-1914) - Abstract - The doctoral thesis is structured according to five major units: Introduction, the six central chapters, Conclusions, References and Appendices. The paper has a total of 260 pages, of which 216 pages are the text itself, with 891 footnotes. In the Introduction I presented the reasons for choosing the subject of the paper, reminding the most important studies and research previously developed in the relevant historiography. Also, I mentioned the methods used and I listed the main cultural magazines analysed for the period between 1900 and 1914. The analysed Romanian press included both cultural magazines from the former kingdom (“Convorbiri literare”, “Noua Revistă Română”, “Sămănătorul”, “Viața Românească”, “Furnica”, “Flacăra”, etc.), as well as magazines from Transylvania (“Luceafărul”, “Transilvania”, “Țara Noastră”, “Telegraful Român”, etc.). On the other hand, I attempted a comparative analysis of the Romanian press and the western press in terms of art reviews. For this purpose I chose prestigious foreign art magazines of the time, consulted on the occasion of the mobility period spent in Italy, such as “Emporium”, “Vita d’arte”, “Il Giornale d’Italia”, “Il Marzocco”, “La Stampa”, etc. Also, I studied the funds of the International Exhibition in Rome in 1911, in which our country participated as well, the delegation of which was conducted by Al. Tzigara-Samurcaș, found in the central state archives in Rome. The second part of the thesis includes the actual research, where Chapters 1-6 are the original contribution of the author. In I. Social and Cultural Context in the Early Twentieth Century for the Romanian Elite I presented briefly the cultural and social framework in which the Romanian artists lived, were educated and created, as reflected in the press. While in Romania they faced cruel social realities, which more often then not became sources of inspiration, as, for instance, the peasant uprising in 1907, in Transylvania the Romanian artists were up against political and economic difficulties, which prevented the proper development of plastic arts. Life was extremely difficult for artists on the Romanian territory a century ago, as they were often dependent on the commissions from the State or private collectors. For this reason the concept of art for art 1 was many times abandoned and that state of facts could only worry the lovers and critics of genuine art. Again, the cultural press, through the reviews and articles published, was the most credible witness of the events, faithfully reflecting the social upheavals and changes. Chapter II. Art Currents and Movements at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century shortly presents the new achievements of European art (Fauvism, German Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, etc.) during the studied period and, by extension, their perception in the Romanian art reviews. Educated in western art centres and academies, especially in Munich and Paris, the Romanian artists returned home with a changed mentality, which led, immediately after 1900, to emancipation from the tutelage of the official salons and the state and to a gradual, but certain, abandonment of the academic style. These modernising trends resulted in the establishment in 1901 of “Tinerimea artistică” society and the first exhibition in 1902, as well as in the increase of personal or collective exhibitions of Romanian plastic artists inside the country and of the more and more frequent participations in international exhibitions. Although the press, through the plastic reviewers, proved a good knowledge of the contemporary European art currents (II.1. European Art), the articles published (with few exceptions) reflected their rejection, favouring the styles of the second half of the 19th century and of the early 20th century. Art Nouveau architecture and the local version, called neo-Romanian or national style, the promoter of which was Ion Mincu and later his numerous followers, such as P. Antonescu, also sparked heated arguments among critics. Traditionalists such as Alexandru Tzigara-Samurcaș, E. M. Zagoritz advocated for the cautious use of folk art elements and condemned the tendency of artists of finding their inspiration in western art circles. Other reviewers, on the contrary, encouraged the modernisation of Romanian art and its connection to the western European development. These reviewers, among which are worth mentioning Apcar Baltazar (signing the reviews in “Viața Românească” under the pseudonym Spiridon Antonescu) in Romania or Otilia Cosmuța in the Transylvanian press, were fine connoisseurs of European modern art and plastic avant-garde (II.2. Romanian Art). Chapter III. Exhibition Reviews and Art Societies is divided, in its turn, into three subchapters: III.1. Reviews on Personal Exhibitions of Romanian Artists; III.2. Reviews 2 on Romanian Art Exhibitions Abroad and III.3. Role of Art Societies in the Evolution of Romanian Art. The first subchapter is dedicated to art reviews on personal or collective exhibitions of Romanian plastic artists. The painting was predominant and among the artists noticed by the plastic critics in the abovementioned publications between 1900 and the beginning of the First World War several representative examples are worth mentioning: Băncilă (personal exhibition in 1900), Ștefan Popescu, Vermont and Grigorescu (personal exhibitions in 1901), Verona (1902), Luchian (1903), Steriadi (1906), Apcar Baltazar (1907), Kimon Loghi, Ştefan Luchian and Oscar Spaethe (collective exhibition in 1908), I. Neglies, N. Comănescu, Aslan-Petrescu, Al. Satmary, Ludovic Basarab, Petrescu Mogoş, Adela Jean, Gropeanu, Derain, Forain, Galanis, Iser Steriadi, Băncilă, Müntzner (personal and collective exhibitions in 1909), Eugenia and Ioan Iordănescu, Dărăscu (personal and collective exhibitions in 1909), Ressu and Sanielevici (collective exhibition in 1911), G. Petrașcu, Theodorescu-Sion, Iser and Pallady (1913), Băncilă, Luchian, Theodorescu-Sion (1914). The reviewers of these art events, who published their reviews, opinions and observations regarding the painting and sculpture exhibitions in famous Romanian magazines, were: P. Bujor, George Dimitriu, S. Sterescu, Th. D. Sperantia, N. D. Cocea, Adrian Maniu (“Noua Revistă Română”), Izabela Sadoveanu-Evan, G. Murnu, Spiridon Antonescu (“Viața Românească”), V. Cioflec, A. Vlahuță, Delavrancea, Al. Tzigara- Samurcaș (“Sămănătorul”), Al. M. Zagoritz, Al. Tzigara-Samurcaș (“Convorbiri literare”), G. Galaction, N. Pora (“Flacăra”) Gh. Duma, O. C. Tăslăuanu (“Luceafărul”). Remarkable figures of the Romanian culture a century ago, they were exhibition reviewers, art lovers and collectors. The majority of those who undertook to art reviewing admired unconditionally the acclaimed Grigorescu and Luchian, but also understood that young artists needed to be encouraged as well (Dărăscu, Pallady, Iser, Petrașcu etc) at their debut on the Romanian art scene. Art criticism on exhibitions was generally positive, appreciative and constructive, but there were also exceptions exemplified in the thesis. The second subchapter, III.2. Reviews on Romanian Art Exhibitions Abroad attempts an analysis, from the point of view of the magazines, of the participations of Romanian plastic arts in exhibitions abroad and the echo among Romanian and foreign 3 reviewers. Romania participated in many exhibitions where it was increasingly well received in the western press. Individual participations of Romanian plastic artists were quite numerous. Grigorescu, Luchian, Pallady, Steriadi, Petrașcu, Dărăscu, Tonitza, Elena Popea etc., in painting, and Iordănescu, Brâncuși, Pavelescu-Dimo, etc. in sculpture were at the top of the Romanian art displayed in the international exhibitions. The foreign art critics who noticed and wrote in a positive manner about the works signed by the Romanian artists were M. Montandon, G. Kahn, G. Apollinaire, E. Bacaloglu, Robert dela Sizeranne, R. Fry, Giustiniano degli Azzi, W. Ritter, etc. The articles that subjected the Romanian artists to art criticism were published in prestigious journals, such as “Emporium”, “Gazette de Beaux-arts”, “L'art et les artistes”, “Vita d'arte”, and often the Romanian journals made reference and quoted the abovementioned magazines. Another important aspect of this chapter is subchapter III.3. Role of Art Societies in the Evolution of Romanian Art. Around 1908 in București there were seven art societies. Another component was the mutual dependency between artists as art producers and the connoisseur buyers, dependency which justified the need for association. Perhaps the greatest impact on the art lovers and art reviews readers was produced by III.3.1. Reviews on Annual Exhibitions of “Tinerimea artistică”. “Tinerimea artistică” was founded in 1901, in response to the Salonul Oficial and to the obsolete academic style. The main purpose of the exhibitions of “Tinerimea artistică” was the promotion of true values in the Romanian art in order to be sufficiently known and appreciated at their real creative level. The main criterion for the participation of associations was unique, capitalising on quality, not quantity, as before. As time went by, “Tinerimea artistică” became elitist, being subjected to increasing demands from critics. Over the years, between 1902 and 1914, the reviewers of the exhibitions of “Tinerimea artistică” were Al. Tzigara-Samurcaș, contributor of “Sămănătorul” and “Convorbiri literare”, Virgil Cioflec, correspondent of the